One thing I noticed in that WT, it says that it is okay for the wife to leave if the husband is "SO violent that her health and life are in danger." What if he is "just a little" violent? What if he just makes red-marks, bruises, goose-eggs and scratches, but never really inflicts life-threatening harm? Does that mean she must stay?
(Yeah, I already know the WTS answer to this, it just pisses me off.) And all due respect to JGnat, most people are not going to read Paul's words in context to the times. The fact remains that, even though Paul may have been more enlightened than some of his compatriots, (and I'm not sure I agree with that assessment,) he still regarded women as significantly less than men. Christian religions all over the world hold up his words as reason to give women less respect and less opportunities than men, and this is regarded as perfectly okay because it is Biblical.
Of course we could say that this shows how Christians must be MORE enlightened than the general populace--just as Paul was. But I would say this is a wishful argument and the real effect of his writings are the ideal excuse to continue dominating and restricting women. Religions that do give women equal status have bent to the winds of political correctness, not found an alternative interpretation to Paul's misogyny. Despite the best efforts of a select few Christians, Christianity remains a paternalistic institution, and that is displaying it in the best possible light.